Brooks: Man, these Democrats really love abortion, don’t they?

posted at 8:41 am on September 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Do they ever. Until the Democratic convention got into prime time, speaker after speaker went to the podium to hail the Democratic Party sacrament, to the point that one would have thought that the source of most woes in America was an epidemic of conception, rather than say, oh, jobs. The focus shifted a little when primetime coverage began, but by that time I’d dozed off.

I wasn’t the only one to notice that my prediction for Abortion-Palooza had come true. New York Times columnist David Brooks told PBS that his one “cavil” was that voters want to hear about jobs and the economy, not taxpayer-subsidized abortion on demand:

“You know, you’re electing someone — we’re going to spend four more years with these people — and after this speech, I think a lot of people will say, ‘Yeah, I think I kind of do,’” Brooks said.

“The one cavil I will have … is this speech has — [it] reinforces something we’ve heard all night, which was how much the crowd goes crazy and how passionate they are about abortion and gay marriage and the social issues. And tonight has been about that.

“And to me it should have been a lot more about economics, growth, and debt. And that better be the job of day two and day three because they did not do it here.”

That’s not a “cavil,” it’s a legitimate — and inescapable — observation. Brooks seemed mighty pleased to have stumped the PBS panel with that word, but he chose it poorly. The point of an incumbent’s convention is to demonstrate the progress made on issues that matter to voters and assume the high ground over one’s opponent. It’s difficult to see how Democrats could have made Barack Obama more irrelevant and small last night.

Because I fell asleep on the program, I missed Michelle Obama’s speech, which seems to have been very well received (I read it this morning instead). But even the First Lady didn’t get the memo on issues. In her lengthy speech, Mrs. Obama only devoted two sentences to jobs — and one of those was talking about how her husband gave up a good-paying job to be a community organizer. The word “economy” only appeared twice, in the middle of the speech. “Debt” only gets mentioned twice as well, and only in the context of student-loan debt.

As the spouse of a candidate, it’s Mrs. Obama’s job to humanize her husband, just as Ann Romney did for hers, and that puts these speeches into a different category than those of the politicians who take the dais. But shouldn’t the First Lady have humanized her husband by emphasizing that he’s focused on the same issues as voters in this election — the economy, jobs, the federal deficit? After all, unlike Mitt Romney, Obama’s been in office for four years of saturation coverage, and humanizing him on family life after nearly five years of intense media adulation on that front is a bit redundant.

Those Obama supporters I have in my Twitter feed were high-fiving last night in celebration of Day 1 of Abortion-Palooza. They were, after all, the intended audience. I suspect that everyone other than the True Believers spent more time headscratching than high-fiving.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

The NARAL women was literally cheering for abortion which was frankly a little bit odd to watch. And she spent the rest of her time saying at least now everyone on earth gets free contraception. It was a very strange speech.

Abortion is real and very readily available. As is contraception. But elevating them into a sacred cow status was frankly very odd.

CorporatePiggy on September 5, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Speaking of cows, what do you bet that the same women cheering the slaughter of unborn humans would condemn bullfighting because of the slaughter of cattle?

This whole abotion thing makes me quite uncomfortable. On the one hand I believe in small government and don’t want them involved in personal choices we make. But on the other hand I’m not willing to say the unborn deserve no rights at all. I can’t understand how many so called christian woman I know are so rabid when it comes to defending abortion rights for any reason at all, even partial birth, and for taxpayers to pay for it.

Same as saying that those in favor of gun rights really like to shoot people.

verbaluce on September 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM

No. The ones in favor of abortion rights are okay with a million dead people every year because they don’t believe that a fetus is a human being. The ones in favor of gun rights are not okay with 20,000 per year killed by gunfire. See the difference?

Same as saying that those in favor of gun rights really like to shoot people.

verbaluce on September 5, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Swing and a miss. Gun rights ensure the protection of all other rights, by precluding complete tyranny. When two people disagree, and one is armed, the other is forced to agree or die. You are welcome to be that person, if you wish. Gun rights isn’t about liking to shoot anything. It’s about liking my liberty.

Abortion is still murder. Owning a gun doesn’t mean I have, nor will, kill anyone. Every abortion means killing someone. I know math is hard, but I’ll bet you can do it.

Same as saying that those in favor of free speech rights really like to swear.
You guys are the ones missing the point.
Pro-choice is about the rights of women to make decisions about their bodies themselves. And that decision could include the decision to not have an abortion.
To suggest that those who believe in and defend such rights ‘really love abortion’ is bullpocky.
But maybe it’s you guys why ‘really love abortion’ – as you seem to fight every efforts and program to reduce and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Yea, let’s go with that ‘logic’.
Stop loving abortion so much, you guys!

Pro-choice is about the rights of women to make decisions about their bodies themselves. And that decision could include the decision to not have an abortion.
To suggest that those who believe in and defend such rights ‘really love abortion’ is bullpocky.
But maybe it’s you guys why ‘really love abortion’ – as you seem to fight every efforts and program to reduce and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Yea, let’s go with that ‘logic’.
Stop loving abortion so much, you guys!

verbaluce on September 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

With a head that far up your ass you’re a shoe-in for a job with Planned Parenthood Public Relations. Or the DNC Platform Committee.

Pro-Slavery is about the right of Americans to make decisions about their property themselves. And that decision could include not owning slaves. To suggest that those who believe in and defend such rights ‘really love slavery’ is bullpocky.

Yes indeedy! More ‘free’ abortions and gay marriage is gonna fix what ails the economy. Sure thing. I’m surprised they didn’t sign up Kermit Gosnell as a speaker. A poster child for allowing 7th decade postpartum abortions if there ever was one.

It seems that lil verbaluce woke up with a bad case of the Screaming Yellow Stupids this morning. And hasn’t taken anything (like the Truth) for it.
Note how it doubles down on its stupidity in an attempt to rationalize or justify its original stupidity. Typical.
Of course, it might be trying to replace DWS as [empty] chair of the DNC – which could explain its attempts at super-stupidity.

I don’t have the same view you do as far as ‘at conception’.
I see if more as gray matter, evolving to a gray area, evolving to what you feel it is at conception.
I don’t ‘love’ abortions – and don’t know anyone who does.
I support any effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies – sex ed, affordable health care & contraception, etc. – which all lead to a reduction in abortions.
I’ve met ‘pro-lifers’ who seem to have a much more pragmatic and much less hysterical approach to the issue. Lots of common ground to be found there.
The mere idea of making abortion illegal is absurd, impractical, devoid of reality, and ignorant of the societal harm such laws would inflict upon the well being of all.

I don’t ‘love’ abortions – and don’t know anyone who does.
I support any effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies – sex ed, affordable health care & contraception, etc. – which all lead to a reduction in abortions.

1) Where do you draw the line on when human life begins? At birth? When the baby would be viable outside the womb? Who should make the decision of viability? The woman? The doctor? The baby? What if the baby doesn’t “come out all limp and dead”? Would you kill the baby with scissors, as Kermit Gosnell did?

2) You do realize that demographers say that exclusively homosexual people who might marry a partner make up less than 2% of our population. So why should we redefine marriage just for them, and not for polygamists, polyamorists or bestialists?

Did you notice that Ms. Keenan of NARAL repeated the tired old saying, “Abortion should be safe, affordable and rare.” But she left off the last part. She said instead that abortion should be safe and affordable.

Are you going to take the position that she didn’t intentionally leave off the last part? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Obama 2002, arguing against a bill that would protect abortion survivors: “As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct? …. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”

The mere idea of making abortion illegal is absurd, impractical, devoid of reality, and ignorant of the societal harm such laws would inflict upon the well being of all.

verbaluce on September 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

No. Abortion destroys society.

The Left adheres to abortion when it will abandon all else because abortion is intrinsic to furthering their agenda and making society conform to their world view. Abortion is the lynchpin of their political agenda.

“The Personal Is Political,” is the title of a feminist essay by Carol Hanisch of 1969. You can read it online. One of the things she says is this:

One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

That statement is key to understanding why the Left always, always wants to be able to kill a baby in the womb. Anything that opposes the collective must be eradicated.

As I understood it, the phrase expressed an ideological will to reduce everything personal to a political formula, stamping out the messy particulars of an individual existence in the process.

Abortion is a political solution to personal problems (i.e., inconvenient babies).

Abortion is a political solution to eradicating the differences between men and women (you know, those “problems” called pregnancy and child rearing). Abortion is a political solution to another problem for the Left: the importance of the family to society.

The Left is so insistent of the necessity of abortion, because nothing is more personal than another human being—and a vulnerable baby is the most graphic reminder—and if the Left can successfully frame the most fragile of all people in terms of politics, then their worldview succeeds in their eyes. Everything must bow to the political collective.

Religion, marriage, family, children are personal. They necessitate morality and personal responsibility in relationships while at the same time calling for the importance of each individual, and for the value of each person to be upheld and demonstrated by shared committed love.

The family is in direct opposition to the Left’s political collective.

The Left protests and squawks over abortion because abortion is the sine qua non political solution to enabling their view of life as a great political collective. Look at what has been said this week about government is the one thing we all belong to!

When someone speaks of abortion in terms of an individual, the lynchpin of their worldview is being opposed.

“Who will make this most personal decision of a woman’s life? Will women decide, or will the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington?”

“Freedom of choice – a basic American right.”

In one of the most successful marketing campaigns in modern political history, the “abortion rights movement” – with all of its emotionally compelling catch-phrases and powerful political slogans – has succeeded in turning what once was a heinous crime into a fiercely defended constitutional right….

How many other Kermit Gosnells are out there? Remember that his clinic was monitored by PA state health inspectors, and he was reprimanded in 1995 by the state licensing board, and the suspension order described “deplorable and unsanitary” conditions at the clinic, indicating that “there was blood on the floor, and parts of aborted fetuses were displayed in jars.” The order declared Gosnell to be “an immediate and clear danger to the public health and safety.”

Yet, he continued to snip baby’s spines and freeze their remains until 2010, when a woman died in a botched abortion and a DEA investigation found he was also a pill pusher.

The DNC, by adopting their extreme abortion platform OWN Kermit Gosnell and all others that might be out there. And they are probably out there. Keep in mind that Kermit Gosnell got RICH exploiting poor women for taxpayer funded abortions and drugs. Money can be made in ‘legitimate murder’.

How dense is Brooks? Stupidity pays I guess. Brooks, they ain’t gonna talk about growth and the economy and the debt in day 2 or 3. It will be nazi this and nazi that, interwoven with screams about the struggle and the long march.

NARAL Pro-Choice America
Pro-choice–even better. Don’t use the word abortion at all, and people will forget what NARAL stands for.

It’s consistent with the evolution of their message. It was all of 30 years ago that they realized they were going to lose the issue on the question of “is it a living human child” and that was when they started running their full-page newspaper ads talking about a “woman’s right to choose”.

Changing the focus of abortion to completely disregard the life in the balance is how they saved an untenable moral position from extinction. That gave them the opportunity to paint those who value human life as “immoral” for anything from not being 100% anti-war to not being 100% pro-federal-programs.

What’s up with this crazy Democratic preoccupation with abortion when it should be jobs, jobs, jobs!

plewis on September 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Hey nice job with that sarcastic accusation of hypocrisy which ignores the fact that you combed over two years worth of combined House and Senate bills to equal less than half the number of jobs bills that the Republicans passed in a single week, PRIOR TO the infamous SOTU address when Obama demanded we pass a jobs bill RIGHT NOW and Harry Reid said, eh, maybe we’ll get around to it next month (read: never).

“All bills lead to jobs in latest spin in Congress
By Sean Lengell
-
The Washington Times
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Some of the so-called “jobs” bills seem a bit of a stretch.

For example: The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, which doesn’t specifically mention jobs, would require the Interior and Agriculture departments “to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness.”

But in a Friday news release titled “House to Consider Another Job Creating Bill Next Week,” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, Washington Republican, said the measure will streamline government red tape in mining and related industries — thus fostering job growth.

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which the House passed but is indefinitely stalled in the Senate, also is labeled as a jobs bill by House GOP leadership. The bill would exempt “farm dust” from falling under Clean Air Act regulations, a move that the bill’s backers say would protect American farm jobs.”

On second thought, stick with the abortion legislation. At least it creates jobs for attornies

Unwanted pregancies = unwanted children that’s another bit of math that Obama hates and uses to fire up the troops.

The whole discussion over access to contraceptive is so dishonest that the media should be horsewhipped every time they misrepresent EACH party’s platform. If it is so critically important to Americans, then it would serve us all to get the facts straight, no?

Same as saying that those in favor of free speech rights really like to swear.
You guys are the ones missing the point.
Pro-choice is about the rights of women to make decisions about their bodies themselves. And that decision could include the decision to not have an abortion.
To suggest that those who believe in and defend such rights ‘really love abortion’ is bullpocky.
But maybe it’s you guys why ‘really love abortion’ – as you seem to fight every efforts and program to reduce and prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Yea, let’s go with that ‘logic’.
Stop loving abortion so much, you guys!

verbaluce on September 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

What am I to think when a co-worker of mine tells me that another co-worker’s daughter, who gave birth to a healthy beautiful baby, “should have had an abortion instead”? When my co-worker basically tells me that we all would have been better off if that child had never been born.

That is at least one “pro-choicer” who “loves abortion”. They certainly loved it more than that kid. It was certainly an eye opener for me, back in the day, when I was basically pro-abortion, myself.

Sorry, there are many “pro-choicers” who “love abortion”. For more than 30 years now, it has been the defining issue for the Democratic Party. You don’t make something the centerpiece of your political life unless you do, in fact, love it.

Maybe instead of a band to fill a slot at the DNC, they could have an abortion on-stage. It seems to really fire up the crowd, especially the womyn.

The beauty if a democrat woman is that she is smart enough to make a “choice” about her abortion, but not smart enough to notice she’s unemployed or her mortgage is greater than her house value. You rock it girls, cause you might be poor and without prospects, but your always ready and able for a roll in the hay! Sistahs!